From aleksey at fast-telecom.net Fri Dec 14 19:25:46 2018 From: aleksey at fast-telecom.net (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 19:25:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation Message-ID: Hello. On the 7th of September the NCC implemeted the document https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer35 (The document is published on the 21th of September). The support clarify it that you cannot merge one LIR into the second LIR in case of M&A procedure because of the 24 month resource transfer restriction. However there is another document https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-2-transfer? where you can read the next: 2.2 Transfer Restrictions This restriction does not prevent the resources from being transferred due to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period. In this case the NCC doesn't follow own policies. Or am I wrong? I though the NCC should create the proposal to make changes to the transfer policies but don't implement unclear documents by the executive board consisting of 7 people. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From sander at steffann.nl Sat Dec 15 01:48:08 2018 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 01:48:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> Hi Aleksey, > On the 7th of September the NCC implemeted the document https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer35 (The document is published on the 21th of September). The support clarify it that you cannot merge one LIR into the second LIR in case of M&A procedure because of the 24 month resource transfer restriction. That section doesn't seem to be about M&A. It talks about normal transfers between LIRs that belong to the same member. > However there is another document https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-2-transfer? > where you can read the next: > > 2.2 Transfer Restrictions > This restriction does not prevent the resources from being transferred due to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period. M&A is a different thing. It involves changes in legal business structures. Take a look at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer31 item ii: """ If the transfer is taking place due to a change in the structure of the organisation(s) involved (e.g., merger, acquisition), a description of the changes among these organisation(s) is necessary. This description must be accompanied by the official legal documents issued by the relevant national authorities proving/supporting the changes the request is based on. If the change in the structure of the organisation(s) involved cannot be proven/supported by official documentation from national authorities describing this change (e.g., a network acquisition from one member to another), then these cases will fall within the scope of RIPE Policy "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies". """ If it is not M&A then the normal policies apply, even when transferring between LIRs belonging to the same member. That includes the 24 month waiting period. > In this case the NCC doesn't follow own policies. Or am I wrong? As far as I can see the NCC is following the policy. Cheers, Sander From aleksey at fast-telecom.net Sat Dec 15 07:16:50 2018 From: aleksey at fast-telecom.net (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:16:50 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Sat Dec 15 09:50:09 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:50:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 09:16:50AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Hi, Sander.

And what if the two legal entities have one owner/director? Is there any document where described that it is equivalent of 2 accounts of the same company? That does not seem to be relevant here. Either it is a M&A, in which case the former owner is not relevant, or it's a normal transfer, in which case the owner is also not relevant. Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by official documents. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Adrian.Bolster at purebroadband.net Sat Dec 15 09:55:53 2018 From: Adrian.Bolster at purebroadband.net (Adrian Bolster) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 08:55:53 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net>, <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: We are going through an M&A at the current time. RIPENCC have asked me, as we are both UK companies, to have our purchase agreement notarised. This is a true acquisition and not some convoluted way of bypassing the system. If anyone wants me to update them how the process works I will do so off list. Cheers, Adrian. Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Dec 2018, at 08:51, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 09:16:50AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >> Hi, Sander.

And what if the two legal entities have one owner/director? Is there any document where described that it is equivalent of 2 accounts of the same company? > > That does not seem to be relevant here. > > Either it is a M&A, in which case the former owner is not relevant, or > it's a normal transfer, in which case the owner is also not relevant. > > Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless > one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by official > documents. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From martin.tonusoo at citictel-cpc.com Mon Dec 17 16:20:28 2018 From: martin.tonusoo at citictel-cpc.com (Martin Tonusoo) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 23:20:28 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy In-Reply-To: <75F20C9C-4D78-4354-9FD7-1578DA4FEAFE@a2b-internet.com> References: <75F20C9C-4D78-4354-9FD7-1578DA4FEAFE@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <234510640.4147466.1545060028319.JavaMail.zimbra@citictel-cpc.com> Hi Erik, sorry for the late reply. > If you look at the text, would the LIR who assigned IP space to their own infra-structure not also be an End-User ? I guess this depends on the definition of the "End User". Simply stating that in the "ASSIGNED PA" definition would make this in my opinion less ambiguous. Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 From: "Erik Bais" To: "Martin Tonusoo" Cc: "address-policy-wg" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 1:33:13 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hi Martin, If you look at the text, would the LIR who assigned IP space to their own infra-structure not also be an End-User ? In the past, the LIR would describe IP space for themselves as Infra or INFRA-AW, but still give it the status Assigned PA. Something along the lines of this example : [ https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=178.249.152.0%20-%20178.249.152.127&type=inetnum | https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=178.249.152.0%20-%20178.249.152.127&type=inetnum ] Regards, Erik Bais From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Martin Tonusoo Date: Tuesday 13 November 2018 at 13:42 To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Subject: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hello, according to "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"(ripe-708) document, the "status" attribute value "ASSIGNED PA" has a definition of "This address space has been assigned to an End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR". As "ASSIGNED PA" should also be used for assignments for LIR own infrastructure, then isn't the definition of "This address space has been assigned to the issuing LIR infrastructure or End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR." bit more accurate? Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Mon Dec 17 16:27:14 2018 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:27:14 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy In-Reply-To: <234510640.4147466.1545060028319.JavaMail.zimbra@citictel-cpc.com> References: <75F20C9C-4D78-4354-9FD7-1578DA4FEAFE@a2b-internet.com> <234510640.4147466.1545060028319.JavaMail.zimbra@citictel-cpc.com> Message-ID: <157F1943-BF8E-40CC-8E43-EB5ADCCD22D1@a2b-internet.com> Hi Martin, If you think it would make sense, feel free to submit a policy proposal. Please let Gert and myself know if you want to do that and we or Marco can assist if needed. Regards, Erik Bais Co-chair for the AP-WG From: Martin Tonusoo Date: Monday 17 December 2018 at 16:20 To: Erik Bais Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hi Erik, sorry for the late reply. > If you look at the text, would the LIR who assigned IP space to their own infra-structure not also be an End-User ? I guess this depends on the definition of the "End User". Simply stating that in the "ASSIGNED PA" definition would make this in my opinion less ambiguous. Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 ________________________________ From: "Erik Bais" To: "Martin Tonusoo" Cc: "address-policy-wg" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 1:33:13 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hi Martin, If you look at the text, would the LIR who assigned IP space to their own infra-structure not also be an End-User ? In the past, the LIR would describe IP space for themselves as Infra or INFRA-AW, but still give it the status Assigned PA. Something along the lines of this example : https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=178.249.152.0%20-%20178.249.152.127&type=inetnum Regards, Erik Bais From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Martin Tonusoo Date: Tuesday 13 November 2018 at 13:42 To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Subject: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hello, according to "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"(ripe-708) document, the "status" attribute value "ASSIGNED PA" has a definition of "This address space has been assigned to an End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR". As "ASSIGNED PA" should also be used for assignments for LIR own infrastructure, then isn't the definition of "This address space has been assigned to the issuing LIR infrastructure or End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR." bit more accurate? Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe at opteamax.de Mon Dec 17 19:12:01 2018 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:12:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless > one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by > official documents. This is also not correct! At least from my experience, the restriction also persists on being bought! The difference between being bought and merged is, at least from German legal point of view, that in a merge (=Verschmelzung) the $OLD company does not exist any longer but becomes fully integrated into $NEW company, while in buying a company, $OLD stays it's own legal entit y. >From my experience ONLY A MERGE IS accepted by RIPE to not apply 24month restriction, while being bought does not shorten this restrictio n. BR -- Jens Ott Gesch?ftsf?hrer Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 19:21:45 2018 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:21:45 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi. Regarding our situation. We have 3 accounts opened this year (for different legal entities). We provided the oficial government documents that confirm M&A procedure. But the NCC doesn't want to merge 2 accounts (of closed organizations) into the 1st account due to it is necessary to convert such accounts into additional account of receiving party, regarding https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer36. But there is restriction to transfer the resources during 24 month between accounts of the same member. So we should pay for additional 2 years fees. ??, 17 ???. 2018 ?. ? 21:12, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH : > > > > Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless > > one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by > > official documents. > > This is also not correct! At least from my experience, the restriction > also persists on being bought! > > The difference between being bought and merged is, at least from > German legal point of view, that in a merge (=Verschmelzung) the $OLD > company does not exist any longer but becomes fully integrated into > $NEW company, while in buying a company, $OLD stays it's own legal entit > y. > > From my experience ONLY A MERGE IS accepted by RIPE to not apply > 24month restriction, while being bought does not shorten this restrictio > n. > > BR > > -- > Jens Ott > Gesch?ftsf?hrer > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > -- ---------- Best regards, Alexey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Dec 18 10:06:44 2018 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:06:44 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: Aleksey, You do as if this was a surprise, but this is clearly documented and discussed. And you have been on the mailinglist for long enough to know that up front as well. If you have 3 LIR accounts this year, and want to put the resources in a single LIR, you MUST wait for 2 years before you can do so. All LIR accounts that are in either entity should be paid in FULL for the hole year once you start transferring resources. This means you pay per LIR : 2000 euro setup fee. 1400 euro first year 1400 euro second year Times 3 ... After that, you can request for a transfer of the resources in to a single account and close the 2 other LIR's. After which, you have a single LIR account with 3 resources in it and a future cost of 1400 euro per year. What you want to do has nothing to do with a Policy violation ... the policy is clear, RIPE NCC is executing the policy as documented. Regards, Erik Bais ?On 17/12/2018, 19:22, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Aleksey Bulgakov" wrote: Hi. Regarding our situation. We have 3 accounts opened this year (for different legal entities). We provided the oficial government documents that confirm M&A procedure. But the NCC doesn't want to merge 2 accounts (of closed organizations) into the 1st account due to it is necessary to convert such accounts into additional account of receiving party, regarding https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer36. But there is restriction to transfer the resources during 24 month between accounts of the same member. So we should pay for additional 2 years fees. ??, 17 ???. 2018 ?. ? 21:12, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH : > > > > Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless > > one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by > > official documents. > > This is also not correct! At least from my experience, the restriction > also persists on being bought! > > The difference between being bought and merged is, at least from > German legal point of view, that in a merge (=Verschmelzung) the $OLD > company does not exist any longer but becomes fully integrated into > $NEW company, while in buying a company, $OLD stays it's own legal entit > y. > > From my experience ONLY A MERGE IS accepted by RIPE to not apply > 24month restriction, while being bought does not shorten this restrictio > n. > > BR > > -- > Jens Ott > Gesch?ftsf?hrer > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > -- ---------- Best regards, Alexey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 10:37:40 2018 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:37:40 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: Erik, Let me disagree with you. 1. If you open account e.g. in January 2019, you may merge accounts in January 2021 only and you will pay for 2019, 2020 and 2021 years + for the new SSA. Total price is 6200 euro. You can open account in the 4th quarter of 2018. In this case the total price is 2000 + 2*1400 + 350 = 5150 (But the NCC made fees for whole year earlier even if you start in November). 2. I didn't see discussions about this restrictions. I received it on the 29th of October 2018 when it was already implemented. So then the NCC will say that it's non-commercial organization. ??, 18 ???. 2018 ?., 12:06 Erik Bais ebais at a2b-internet.com: > Aleksey, > > You do as if this was a surprise, but this is clearly documented and > discussed. And you have been on the mailinglist for long enough to know > that up front as well. > > If you have 3 LIR accounts this year, and want to put the resources in a > single LIR, you MUST wait for 2 years before you can do so. > > All LIR accounts that are in either entity should be paid in FULL for the > hole year once you start transferring resources. > > This means you pay per LIR : > > 2000 euro setup fee. > 1400 euro first year > 1400 euro second year > > Times 3 ... > > After that, you can request for a transfer of the resources in to a single > account and close the 2 other LIR's. > > After which, you have a single LIR account with 3 resources in it and a > future cost of 1400 euro per year. > > What you want to do has nothing to do with a Policy violation ... the > policy is clear, RIPE NCC is executing the policy as documented. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > > > ?On 17/12/2018, 19:22, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Aleksey Bulgakov" < > address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of aleksbulgakov at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi. > > Regarding our situation. We have 3 accounts opened this year (for > different legal entities). We provided the oficial government > documents that confirm M&A procedure. But the NCC doesn't want to > merge 2 accounts (of closed organizations) into the 1st account due to > it is necessary to convert such accounts into additional account of > receiving party, regarding > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer36. > > But there is restriction to transfer the resources during 24 month > between accounts of the same member. So we should pay for additional 2 > years fees. > ??, 17 ???. 2018 ?. ? 21:12, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH < > ripe at opteamax.de>: > > > > > > > Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless > > > one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by > > > official documents. > > > > This is also not correct! At least from my experience, the > restriction > > also persists on being bought! > > > > The difference between being bought and merged is, at least from > > German legal point of view, that in a merge (=Verschmelzung) the $OLD > > company does not exist any longer but becomes fully integrated into > > $NEW company, while in buying a company, $OLD stays it's own legal > entit > > y. > > > > From my experience ONLY A MERGE IS accepted by RIPE to not apply > > 24month restriction, while being bought does not shorten this > restrictio > > n. > > > > BR > > > > -- > > Jens Ott > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer > > > > Opteamax GmbH > > > > Simrockstr. 4b > > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott > > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > > > -- > ---------- > Best regards, > Alexey Bulgakov > Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Dec 18 10:40:24 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:40:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:37:40PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > So then the NCC will say that it's non-commercial organization. This is not about making money. It is about making it clear that you can't just get cheap /22s from the RIPE NCC. But you know all that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dominik at clouvider.co.uk Tue Dec 18 10:51:16 2018 From: dominik at clouvider.co.uk (Dominik Nowacki) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:51:16 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> , Message-ID: <4771EA2D-AC61-4C59-9DE8-C71DF2A40FB0@clouvider.co.uk> Hi Aleksey, I disagree with your interpretation. NCC is in the right here, you?ve been correctly charged as everyone else. With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 18 Dec 2018, at 09:38, Aleksey Bulgakov > wrote: Erik, Let me disagree with you. 1. If you open account e.g. in January 2019, you may merge accounts in January 2021 only and you will pay for 2019, 2020 and 2021 years + for the new SSA. Total price is 6200 euro. You can open account in the 4th quarter of 2018. In this case the total price is 2000 + 2*1400 + 350 = 5150 (But the NCC made fees for whole year earlier even if you start in November). 2. I didn't see discussions about this restrictions. I received it on the 29th of October 2018 when it was already implemented. So then the NCC will say that it's non-commercial organization. ??, 18 ???. 2018 ?., 12:06 Erik Bais ebais at a2b-internet.com: Aleksey, You do as if this was a surprise, but this is clearly documented and discussed. And you have been on the mailinglist for long enough to know that up front as well. If you have 3 LIR accounts this year, and want to put the resources in a single LIR, you MUST wait for 2 years before you can do so. All LIR accounts that are in either entity should be paid in FULL for the hole year once you start transferring resources. This means you pay per LIR : 2000 euro setup fee. 1400 euro first year 1400 euro second year Times 3 ... After that, you can request for a transfer of the resources in to a single account and close the 2 other LIR's. After which, you have a single LIR account with 3 resources in it and a future cost of 1400 euro per year. What you want to do has nothing to do with a Policy violation ... the policy is clear, RIPE NCC is executing the policy as documented. Regards, Erik Bais ?On 17/12/2018, 19:22, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Aleksey Bulgakov" on behalf of aleksbulgakov at gmail.com> wrote: Hi. Regarding our situation. We have 3 accounts opened this year (for different legal entities). We provided the oficial government documents that confirm M&A procedure. But the NCC doesn't want to merge 2 accounts (of closed organizations) into the 1st account due to it is necessary to convert such accounts into additional account of receiving party, regarding https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer36. But there is restriction to transfer the resources during 24 month between accounts of the same member. So we should pay for additional 2 years fees. ??, 17 ???. 2018 ?. ? 21:12, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH >: > > > > Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless > > one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by > > official documents. > > This is also not correct! At least from my experience, the restriction > also persists on being bought! > > The difference between being bought and merged is, at least from > German legal point of view, that in a merge (=Verschmelzung) the $OLD > company does not exist any longer but becomes fully integrated into > $NEW company, while in buying a company, $OLD stays it's own legal entit > y. > > From my experience ONLY A MERGE IS accepted by RIPE to not apply > 24month restriction, while being bought does not shorten this restrictio > n. > > BR > > -- > Jens Ott > Gesch?ftsf?hrer > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > -- ---------- Best regards, Alexey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 11:30:11 2018 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:30:11 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want to devide profit with anyone. Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch will pay for many years later. ??, 18 ???. 2018 ?., 12:40 Gert Doering gert at space.net: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:37:40PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > So then the NCC will say that it's non-commercial organization. > > This is not about making money. It is about making it clear that > you can't just get cheap /22s from the RIPE NCC. > > But you know all that. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael > Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Dec 18 11:35:49 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:35:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20181218103549.GP1543@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 01:30:11PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want to > devide profit with anyone. > > Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple > accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch will > pay for many years later. We understand that you are unhappy that you cannot get IPv4 addresses in unlimited amounts for free from the RIPE NCC anymore. This is unfortunate, but a fact of live that you share with everybody else who wants more IPv4 addresses. The policies work nicely as designed: stopping those that do not care about others from using up all the remaining addresses in a selfish manner. So, please stop complaining. You are just wasting everyone else's time. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From uros at ub330.net Tue Dec 18 11:37:10 2018 From: uros at ub330.net (Uros Gaber) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:37:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: Dear Aleksey, Maybe you miss the point of having IPv4 resources (at this time). It is not to resell and make a profit, but to use where the resources are scarce, I think we can (still) be happy that RIPE and its members have made a good job until now so that any new LIR has some IPv4 resources at their disposal. Kind regards, Uros Gaber On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:31 AM Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want to > devide profit with anyone. > > Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple > accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch will > pay for many years later. > > ??, 18 ???. 2018 ?., 12:40 Gert Doering gert at space.net: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:37:40PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >> > So then the NCC will say that it's non-commercial organization. >> >> This is not about making money. It is about making it clear that >> you can't just get cheap /22s from the RIPE NCC. >> >> But you know all that. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael >> Emmer >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From me at cynthia.re Tue Dec 18 11:38:06 2018 From: me at cynthia.re (=?UTF-8?Q?Cynthia_Revstr=c3=b6m?=) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:38:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3ea3ea37-1e31-c353-67f0-276b5f713ee0@cynthia.re> Hello, Look Aleksey, the RIPE NCC is a not for profit, membership based organization, the RIPE NCC doesn't sell IP space, you get IP space from the RIPE NCC by being a member in the RIPE NCC. Also, when they get more money than they will need, they vote on what to do with the money. I can not stress this enough, the RIPE NCC is a not for profit, who gets resources from IANA. They are just doing their best to evenly divide the IP space. Please stop complaining, you won't get anywhere with it and you are wasting people's time. Kind regards, Cynthia Revstr?m On 2018-12-18 11:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want > to devide profit with anyone. > > Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple > accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch > will pay for many years later. > > ??, 18 ???. 2018 ?., 12:40 Gert Doering gert at space.net > : > > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:37:40PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > So then the NCC will say that it's non-commercial organization. > > This is not about making money.? It is about making it clear that > you can't just get cheap /22s from the RIPE NCC. > > But you know all that. > > Gert Doering > ? ? ? ? -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, > Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14? ? ? ? Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444? ? ? ? ?USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Dec 18 11:52:24 2018 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:52:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3fc1e30f-9eee-6ee9-9c56-6e5aaf1fbef5@ripe.net> Dear Aleksey and all, We would like to clarify the situation because the policy refers to transfers between RIPE NCC members and not transfers between the LIR accounts that members might hold. A member may hold multiple LIR accounts. Regarding the section that you refer to in the procedure, please see the mail that was sent to the NCC Announce mailing list in October: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2018-October/001286.html This message explains how the RIPE NCC processes transfers of IPv4 address space or 16-bit ASNs due to a merger, acquisition or any other change in business structure. We hope this clarifies that no policy violation has taken place. A merger or acquisition is possible at any time and must take place following the processes outlined in the email. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC On 17/12/2018 19:21, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Hi. > > Regarding our situation. We have 3 accounts opened this year (for > different legal entities). We provided the oficial government > documents that confirm M&A procedure. But the NCC doesn't want to > merge 2 accounts (of closed organizations) into the 1st account due to > it is necessary to convert such accounts into additional account of > receiving party, regarding > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-709#transfer36. > > But there is restriction to transfer the resources during 24 month > between accounts of the same member. So we should pay for additional 2 > years fees. > ??, 17 ???. 2018 ?. ? 21:12, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH : >> >>> Which is kind of the point. The 24 month restriction holds, unless >>> one LIR gets bought/merged, and the latter needs to be proved by >>> official documents. >> This is also not correct! At least from my experience, the restriction >> also persists on being bought! >> >> The difference between being bought and merged is, at least from >> German legal point of view, that in a merge (=Verschmelzung) the $OLD >> company does not exist any longer but becomes fully integrated into >> $NEW company, while in buying a company, $OLD stays it's own legal entit >> y. >> >> From my experience ONLY A MERGE IS accepted by RIPE to not apply >> 24month restriction, while being bought does not shorten this restrictio >> n. >> >> BR >> >> -- >> Jens Ott >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer >> >> Opteamax GmbH >> >> Simrockstr. 4b >> 53619 Rheinbreitbach >> >> Tel.: +49 2224 969500 >> Fax: +49 2224 97691059 >> Email: jo at opteamax.de >> >> HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott >> Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 >> > From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Tue Dec 18 13:16:28 2018 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:16:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3da06596-f545-00e6-70b0-a1ed55f2b436@schiefner.de> Aleksey, your stream of argument: On 18.12.2018 11:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want > to devide profit with anyone. > > Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple > accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch > will pay for many years later. makes me sad. Very sad. As it is so... Ignorant? Fully intentionally misguiding? Deeply depressed: -C. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Dec 18 15:08:54 2018 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:08:54 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> Message-ID: > On 18 Dec 2018, at 10:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want to devide profit with anyone. You might well think that. However that doesn't mean it's true. And in this case, you are completely and utterly wrong. Perhaps verging on the delusional. The NCC does not and never has sold address space. It's a not-for-profit membership organisation. It's not allowed to "make profits" in the sense that a commercial undertaking does. In fact the NCC has special status under Dutch law which prevents it from behaving like a for-profit enterprise. Sometimes the membership fees raise more income than the annual budget anticipated. When that happens, the NCC and its board) consults its members on what to do with the surplus. From time to time the members have decided to accept a rebate on their membership fee or have their fees reduced. The membership decides, not the NCC. Since you seem to represent an LIR (or more than one), you get to vote on these matters at the AGM. The NCC's members -- ie the LIRs -- get to elect the board and tell the NCC what to do. It's simply ridiculous to claim the NCC sets out to make more money than it needs and keep all that extra "profit" for itself. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Dec 18 15:09:41 2018 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:09:41 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <3ea3ea37-1e31-c353-67f0-276b5f713ee0@cynthia.re> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> <3ea3ea37-1e31-c353-67f0-276b5f713ee0@cynthia.re> Message-ID: <2359B17B-D0F4-444D-9487-2B733CCEFB7B@rfc1035.com> > On 18 Dec 2018, at 10:38, Cynthia Revstr?m via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Look Aleksey, the RIPE NCC is a not for profit, membership based organization, the RIPE NCC doesn't sell IP space, you get IP space from the RIPE NCC by being a member in the RIPE NCC. > > Also, when they get more money than they will need, they vote on what to do with the money. > > I can not stress this enough, the RIPE NCC is a not for profit, who gets resources from IANA. > > They are just doing their best to evenly divide the IP space. > > Please stop complaining, you won't get anywhere with it and you are wasting people's time. Well said! From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Tue Dec 18 16:19:33 2018 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:19:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <3da06596-f545-00e6-70b0-a1ed55f2b436@schiefner.de> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> <3da06596-f545-00e6-70b0-a1ed55f2b436@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <2b10c31f-7bd8-3595-3a0d-b4ac4fbb1691@schiefner.de> As I got flagged by one active participant in this thread what I would mean by the below; whether it has been the NCC or the participant who I felt is attempting to intentionally misguiding the audience? To be crystal clear: the latter of the two. On 18.12.2018 13:16, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Aleksey, > > your stream of argument: > > On 18.12.2018 11:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >> I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want >> to devide profit with anyone. >> >> Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple >> accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch >> will pay for many years later. > > makes me sad. > > Very sad. > > As it is so... > > Ignorant? > > Fully intentionally misguiding? > > Deeply depressed: > > -C. From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Tue Dec 18 16:28:34 2018 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:28:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation In-Reply-To: <2b10c31f-7bd8-3595-3a0d-b4ac4fbb1691@schiefner.de> References: <51BAD3D6-7161-427A-B270-44FFE09B4177@steffann.nl> <2946011544854610@myt5-f1576e7b5bad.qloud-c.yandex.net> <20181215085009.GY1543@Space.Net> <20181218094024.GN1543@Space.Net> <3da06596-f545-00e6-70b0-a1ed55f2b436@schiefner.de> <2b10c31f-7bd8-3595-3a0d-b4ac4fbb1691@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <35a57e0f-95b4-7201-879f-63dfe80cc317@schiefner.de> On 18.12.2018 16:19, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > As I got flagged by one active participant in this thread what I would > mean by the below; whether it has been the NCC or the participant who I > felt is attempting to intentionally misguiding the audience? > > To be crystal clear: the latter of the two. And to also make this very clear: I am, however, very delighted by my observation that the vast majority of active participants here aren't easily to be take for a ride by crude assertions and wannabe arguments. This WG still works as designed, me thinks. :-) > On 18.12.2018 13:16, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> Aleksey, >> >> your stream of argument: >> >> On 18.12.2018 11:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >>> I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want >>> to devide profit with anyone. >>> >>> Of course it has more profit if there are more members with multiple >>> accounts or many different accounts of different legal entities witch >>> will pay for many years later. >> >> makes me sad. >> >> Very sad. >> >> As it is so... >> >> Ignorant? >> >> Fully intentionally misguiding? >> >> Deeply depressed: >> >> -C. From martin.tonusoo at citictel-cpc.com Fri Dec 21 18:12:46 2018 From: martin.tonusoo at citictel-cpc.com (Martin Tonusoo) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 01:12:46 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy In-Reply-To: <157F1943-BF8E-40CC-8E43-EB5ADCCD22D1@a2b-internet.com> References: <75F20C9C-4D78-4354-9FD7-1578DA4FEAFE@a2b-internet.com> <234510640.4147466.1545060028319.JavaMail.zimbra@citictel-cpc.com> <157F1943-BF8E-40CC-8E43-EB5ADCCD22D1@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <512287994.4303868.1545412366695.JavaMail.zimbra@citictel-cpc.com> Hi Erik, while it would be a really tiny change, then maybe somebody else finds this useful as well. So I filled in the "Policy Submission Template" and sent it to Address Policy Working Group Chairs. Happy Holidays! Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 From: "Erik Bais" To: "Martin Tonusoo" Cc: "Policy Officer" , "address-policy-wg" , "Gert Doering" Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 5:27:14 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hi Martin, If you think it would make sense, feel free to submit a policy proposal. Please let Gert and myself know if you want to do that and we or Marco can assist if needed. Regards, Erik Bais Co-chair for the AP-WG From: Martin Tonusoo Date: Monday 17 December 2018 at 16:20 To: Erik Bais Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hi Erik, sorry for the late reply. > If you look at the text, would the LIR who assigned IP space to their own infra-structure not also be an End-User ? I guess this depends on the definition of the "End User". Simply stating that in the "ASSIGNED PA" definition would make this in my opinion less ambiguous. Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 From: "Erik Bais" To: "Martin Tonusoo" Cc: "address-policy-wg" Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 1:33:13 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hi Martin, If you look at the text, would the LIR who assigned IP space to their own infra-structure not also be an End-User ? In the past, the LIR would describe IP space for themselves as Infra or INFRA-AW, but still give it the status Assigned PA. Something along the lines of this example : [ https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=178.249.152.0%20-%20178.249.152.127&type=inetnum | https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/lookup?source=ripe&key=178.249.152.0%20-%20178.249.152.127&type=inetnum ] Regards, Erik Bais From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Martin Tonusoo Date: Tuesday 13 November 2018 at 13:42 To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Subject: [address-policy-wg] definition of "ASSIGNED PA" in IPv4 address allocation and assignment policy Hello, according to "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"(ripe-708) document, the "status" attribute value "ASSIGNED PA" has a definition of "This address space has been assigned to an End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR". As "ASSIGNED PA" should also be used for assignments for LIR own infrastructure, then isn't the definition of "This address space has been assigned to the issuing LIR infrastructure or End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR." bit more accurate? Best regards, Martin Tonusoo IP Network Engineer -------------------------- CITIC Telecom CPC www.citictel-cpc.com -------------------------- Direct: +372 622 3321 NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: